Doctrine by topic · DGT Observatory

Seizure of Assets: DGT doctrinal evolution

How the DGT's position on this topic has evolved, and the rulings it rests on.

← DGT Observatory

How the DGT's position has evolved

Refined position High confidence 8 rulings · 2014–2026

Current position

The seizure limits set by the LEC (Civil Procedure Law) apply only to perceptions considered salary under the Workers' Statute. Indemnities, expense reimbursements, Social Security benefits, or compensation for transfers, suspensions, or dismissals are not considered salary. The seizure of future credits that have not yet arisen or whose existence is uncertain is unfeasible; however, it is possible to seize accrued but not yet due credits or successive payments.

The DGT's position remains constant regarding the application of enforcement regulations, but it has specified the scope of non-seizability. It has been delimited that the LEC limits exclusively protect salary and not other benefits such as indemnities or expense reimbursements. Likewise, it has clarified the feasibility of seizing accrued but not yet due credits versus the impossibility of affecting uncertain future credits.

Turning points

  1. V2788-23

    Establishes that the SMI (Minimum Interprofessional Wage) is entirely non-seizable to guarantee basic needs, such that the proportional calculation for part-time shifts does not allow for its pro-rata distribution for seizure.

  2. V0388-24

    Specifies the unfeasibility of seizing future credits that have not yet arisen or whose existence is uncertain, allowing only for the seizure of accrued but not yet due credits.

  3. V1056-26

    Delimits that the LEC limits apply exclusively to what the Workers' Statute defines as salary, excluding indemnities, expense reimbursements, or Social Security benefits.

Analysis based on 8 of 8 rulings with a stated position. Updated 1 October 2026.

Rulings on this topic

8
Email
Contact